This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
After reviewing translation terms, 集團軍 is normally translated as 'Group Army', while the term for Army Group would be 军团 or 軍團, so it would be important to specify the differences here. Aldis90 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, can you provide evidence that "集團軍 is normally translated as 'Group Army'"? As I have said on your talk page, official publication by the ROC or ROCA use "Army Group". I think it's safe to assume that books published in the ROC and by the ROC government or the ROC army is the most reliable regarding translation. It is, after all, THEIR army, and not the PRC's. 軍團, incidentally, is translated "Army Corps" by the ROCA. Миборовский (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The best reference would be translation terms used at time of NRA operation (1928-1949), as both PLA and ROCA are successors to the NRA, regardless of semantics. I will be checking on old references to see what the standard translation was as a matter of verification. Aldis90 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
One primary source I will try to look at is 'THE CHINESE ARMY, THE GROWTH AND ORGANIZATION OF THE CHINESE ARMY FROM 1895 TO 1945: By George F. Nafziger', as it would possibly be comprehensive. Aldis90 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if the Trad. and Simp. characters for each could be put in the Nationalist Army article section that explains each of the organization levels. That would clear up a lot of difficulties.Asiaticus 05:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I have not yet found a copy of Nafziger's book, other old sources dating back to the 1950's seem to use Army Group, and as such will leave the title as is for now unless other materials state otherwise. However, I do agree with Asiaticus about specifying the terminology variations as a means of clarifying the terms. It may also help to discuss this with the Chinese wiki article editors as well. Aldis90 (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing additional historical documents and discussions with various knowledgeable individuals, it appears that 'Group Army' and 'Army Group' have been interchangeably used historically, and as such will be noted in the text. Aldis90 (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see you provide any sort of evidence backing your assertions. Until it has been shown by concrete evidence (as in, more than just you saying you have consulted with "knowledgeable individuals" who turned out to be no more than online forum members,) that "army group" has historically been used interchangeably with "group army", it should not be in the article. In addition, there is absolutely no need for a so-called "literal translation" since "集團軍" translates literally to "group of armies", which is so close to the accepted translation "army group" as to render a "literal translation" in the lead section unnecessary and superfluous. Миборовский (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As a variety of historical documents alternate between the use of 'Army Group' and 'Group Army' for 集團軍, is the accurate translation of 集團軍 'Army Group' or 'Group Army'? A sample list of sources is given here:
Building and Funding a Warlord Regime: The Experience of Chen Jitang in Guangdong, 1929-1936, by Alfred H. Y. Lin
I can't believe you're still nitpicking on such a minor point. Like I explained numerous times before, none of your sources are relevant here. I'm sorry. If you read the article, the FIRST Army Group was formed in 1937, after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Therefore, all sources dealing with events before that date, namely #1, 2, 3, 5 have nothing to do with the this issue. Sources 3, 4, 6 , 7 are all written by communists, whose authoritativeness on the organization of the Nationalist army is suspect at best. #2 and 5 appear to be as credible and reliable as Wikipedia is (and republicanchina.org aka uglychinese.org (how's that name for revealing a bias?) is even less so). The only one worth considering is #8, but can you produce a quote?
I don't want to watch over this article like a hawk, so here's my concession to you. One mention that army groups are "sometimes also referred to as group armies" in the lead, and then no more. OK? Миборовский (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I for one do not care for having to 'nitpick' over details such as this, nor is this article simply your personal turf to prowl over per se, so I will make this as succinct as possible to end any further rows. Again, just because it is written by 'communists' does not invalidate a source, particularly as the Commmunists were both derived from the Nationalist forces and merged their units with them during the war, so it remains quite relevant to the issue. But in any case, I do fully agree with saying that army groups are "sometimes also referred to as group armies" in the lead, and so I will say no more on this afterwards. Aldis90 (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not necessarily comfortable giving advice on this issue, but the term "army group" makes a lot more sense than "group army." Is this a PRC vs. ROC terminology thing? <eleland/talkedits> 13:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)